From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
shinagawa> I found inconsistent definitions for the following three SSL APIs
shinagawa> in symhacks.h and ssl.h.
I assume that we're talkong OpenSSL 0.9.6b here, yes?
shinagawa>
shinagawa>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shinagawa> <SYMHACKS.H>
shinagawa> #define SSL_get_ex_data_X509_STORE_CTX_idx
SSL_get_ex_d_X509_STORE_CTX_idx
shinagawa> #define SSL_add_file_cert_subjects_to_stack
SSL_add_file_cert_subjs_to_stk
shinagawa> #define SSL_add_dir_cert_subjects_to_stack
SSL_add_dir_cert_subjs_to_stk
shinagawa>
shinagawa> <SSL.H>
shinagawa> #define SSL_get_ex_data_X509_STORE_CTX_idx
SSL_get_ex_data_X509_STOR_CTX_i
shinagawa> #define SSL_add_file_cert_subjects_to_stack
SSL_add_file_cert_sub_to_stack
shinagawa> #define SSL_add_dir_cert_subjects_to_stack
SSL_add_dir_cert_sub_to_stack
shinagawa>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for finding those!
shinagawa> According to ssleay.num, the ones in symhacks.h seem correct.
shinagawa> So should we fix ssl.h?
Remove those lines in ssl.h and make sure it #includes symhacks.h.
That should do it, but I haven't tested that yet.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-733-72 88 11
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, GemPlus: http://www.gemplus.com/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
